( 1 ) THE petitioners trustees of a registered public trust known as Jahangirpura Masjid Baroda have filed this petition challenging the appellate order of the Revenue Tribunal which has set aside the Charity Commissioners order and has accordingly sanctioned the proposed sale. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 trustees have been joined along with respondent No. 3 tenant in whose favour the sanction is granted. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are the Charity Commissioner and the Revenue Tribunal. It application under sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act had been made by the trustees for sale of the trust land admeasuring 97 sq. yds. in Baroda belonging to the trust which was rented out to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 51 since many years. In the application it was alleged that the tenant his agreed to purchase the said land for Rs. 15000/ and that the trustees intended to utilise the sale proceeds for construction of a building on the land of the trust 5. No. 19. It was further alleged that under these circumstances it was in the interest of the trust to sell this land to the tenant and therefore sanction was claimed of the Charity Commissioner under sec. 36 of the Act. No valuation report of the expert as required by the relevant Rule 24 was annexed but a Panchnama of the Panch valuation was annexed which went to the extent of stating that even for vacant possession this property would fetch Rs. 10 0 The applicant had also filed a copy of the resolution dated August 19 1970 passed by the general meeting of the Moholla Panch and a copy of the Banakhat dated August 23 1970 As some complaint had been filed from Moholla people opposing this sale the trustees were directed by the Charity Commissioner even to give a public advertisement inviting tenders for the proposed sale of property. In the advertisement the trustees stated that the property was in possession of a tenant and it fetched a rent of Rs. 5/ and it is within the road line of the Municipal Corporation. Till last date for submitting offers no offer had been received. Meanwhile one Amirmiya Azammiya a plumber who was beneficiary of the trust had by his letter dated March 17 1971 offered to give a loan of Rs. 10 0 without interest to the trust for construction on the open plot of other land belonging to the trust if the trust needed money. Thereafter on April 6 1971 the four petitioners trustees withdrew their consent for the proposed sale and prayed that the application for permission be rejected. They had pointed out that this sale was opposed by the Moholla residents who were beneficiaries and if such sale was permitted there were other trust properties which were let out on nominal rent would be considerably affected. They relied on the plumbers offer of the loan of Rs. 10 0 They also relied on the fact that there would be endless disputes amongst the Moholla people. Respondent No. 1 trustee however opposed this withdrawal and insisted on permission being granted as it was in the interest of the trust. Finally the petitioners produced the resolution passed by the trustees to withdraw this proceeding and even they terminated the authority which was previously given to respondent No. 1 to proceed with the application for permission. Even the Moholla residents resolution of October 10 1971 was produced opposing such a sale. The earlier pending suit for eviction of respondent No. 3 tenant had been dismissed by the Court on February 21 1962 The suit had been filed on the ground that a new building was to be constructed on the land let out to the defendant. An appeal against the said decree had been dismissed for non-prosecution by the District Court by the order dated January 18 1963 where it was in terms stated that the trustees had given a statement Ex. 11. for having arrived at a settlement with the tenant and so they did not want to prosecute that appeal. At that time also there was a difference in the trustees and